On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 06:05:02PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 04:58:54PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 05:55:31PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 03:55:44PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 03:01:25PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > +void i915_gem_update_fb_bits(struct drm_i915_gem_object *old, > > > > > + struct drm_i915_gem_object *new, > > > > > + unsigned frontbuffer_bits); > > > > > + > > > > > > > > Time to be a nuisance: > > > > > > > > i915_gem_object_track_fb() > > > > > > > > The key part is that is operates on the object. The other is just to try > > > > and shorten the name as compensation. > > > > > > Hm, I've thought the i915_gem part is a giveaway - I'm not too fond of the > > > i915_gem_obj prefix since it's so long ... > > > > Until we make the wholehearted change, stick to convention. > > Well object or objects? It operates on both after all since often we need > both so separate set/clear seemed too noisy. Oops. Yes it does, just ignore this subthread, it is indeed i915_gem_track_fb(). (Not keen on bits, it's too generic in English.) -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
